Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course it is. Any system which functions in that way can be called sonar. But just because some sonar systems are designed doesn't mean that all of them are. Function is not evidence of design.are you kidding? a whale sonar isnt a sonar? :
so even according to evolution i dont see any problem to evolve a car.
A humanoid robot is generally called an 'android'.Right. The 'artifact' just happens to imitate a human being. I still don't see why we can't call it a robot.
The flagellum is an extension of a single cell. That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears.the flagellum is spinning very well. so im sure that if a car were exist in nature evolution had no problem to explain how it evolved. also dont forget that even scientists dont know how many biological systems evolved and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so even according to evolution i dont see any problem to evolve a car.
It's hard to say - words are like that. When you start dealing with fringe or special cases you often need to come up with new words or categories. In science fiction, humanoid robots are called 'androids', but that implies considerably more independence than robots as conventionally understood.so the difference between a robot and a creature is the matter that it made from? if not, where is the limit between a robot and a creature? if you cant point out that then you cant claim that an artificial penguin isnt a robot.
Yes; like so many words, it's meaning becomes less clear the closer one looks, because its boundaries are defined by usage and by edge-cases, where it becomes more ambiguous.Function is not the same as purpose, but there is some ambiguity in popular usage which ID attempts to exploit.
A humanoid robot is generally called an 'android'.
The problem with xianghua's questions is that when he talks of an 'artificial human', he doesn't make clear whether he means a humanoid robot or a biological human, e.g. a genetically engineered clone (which would not be considered a robot).
This opacity is understandable, as he seems to be contriving an argument through deliberate equivocation, but it needs to be pointed out.
For an android, you could conclude design if you could find evidence of manufacture (e.g. artificial materials).Gotcha, thanks. I suppose in either case we could conclude design though. Design that imitates what we see in nature.
It is humans that attribute function or purpose and interpret what things do as functional or purposeful. We have a strong tendency to attribute human-like agency even to inanimate objects, when we know it's inappropriate (e.g. the car doesn't like cold weather and doesn't want to start).
It causes confusion when an undirected, purposeless, process like evolution produces traits with selective advantage.
When viewing the outcomes, it's tempting to attribute function and purpose because that fits a familiar narrative;
But if there's no purpose behind the spines, is it reasonable to say they have a function, as we so often do? Is the word 'function' ambiguous, or is our usage of it ambiguous? is there a difference?
are you kidding? a whale sonar isnt a sonar? :
NO ONE is making that assumption. No one is assuming that natural objects have no designer,I know humans give function and purpose to the things they create, which is why it's counterintuitive to assume natural function and purpose wasn't given by higher agent who created it.
You choose to start from the counterintuitive assumption which states any function or purpose you find in nature can't have been given by a higher agent, rather than the intuitive assumption which states that it could have been given by a higher agent, since we know it's possible for agents to give function and purpose to things they create.
NO ONE is making that assumption. No one is assuming that natural objects have no designer,
The point to all this is, absent evidence of human (or other) intelligent manufacture, the presence of intelligent design cannot be determined.
The IDist position is that the presence of functional organization unequivocally demonstrates the presence of intelligent design. The contrary position is that it does not. Note that the contrary position does not assert that intelligent design is absent, merely that the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design.
Which is a philosophical decision not related to our present discussion.If they see no reason to assume a designer, then they either make no assumptions or assume no designer. You can't honestly tell me that no atheist assumes the universe and life on earth wasn't created by God.
My position is that the presence of functional organization does not prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Period.I agree, the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design, but it does give good reason to assume intelligent design. Many atheists won't even acknowledge the legitimate reasons to assume a function or purpose giver.
My position is that the presence of functional organization does not prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Period.
My personal view is that God is author of the universe whether one can prove the existence of a "designer" through the presence of functional organization or not. Consequently, I have no patience whatever with creationists who represent the rejection of the ID argument as a rejection of the existence of God. That is pure sophistry. It is a typical arrogant creationist ploy, "Rejecting my argument for the existence of God is the same as rejecting the existence of God."
The ID position is different. They want to convert the existence of God into a falsifiable proposition. They must prove the existence of God by with scientific evidence so they can shove their particular theology up all of our noses.
Oh, Pooh! I'm a cranky old man with a chip on my shoulder from having lived in the Bible Belt for several years.Agreed, and I'd add that it does give clues one way or the other.
I agree that's not a good way for creationists(people) to behave and I hope you continue to speak the truth in love to them(not saying you're not already doing that).
Well, yeah, but it's the attribution of function and purpose that's in question in this context. Intuition is a poor guide to reality.I know humans give function and purpose to the things they create, which is why it's counterintuitive to assume natural function and purpose wasn't given by higher agent who created it.
No; we have a vast amount of data, in multiple independent lines of evidence, indicating that the life on Earth has diversified in a tree-like hierarchy of descent from a primitive early ancestor; i.e. evidence that biological evolution has occurred.You choose to start from the counterintuitive assumption which states any function or purpose you find in nature can't have been given by a higher agent...
It's a question of parsimony - we know evolution can produce the results we see without purpose, so there's no good reason to invoke purpose. Occam's razor, if you like.It's only confusing when you assume evolution has no purpose giver. Try assuming it does and you may begin to see the true meaning and purpose behind everything, not just evolution.
I didn't say it was 'bad', I said it was tempting to do so because we're strongly inclined to over-attribute agency (the HADD); I was suggesting we should be wary of making mistakes based on our innate or intuitive reactions. We are generally very susceptible to such cognitive errors, so it pays to be aware of them and take account of them. Don't invoke what isn't not necessary; as Laplace apocryphally said to Napoleon when asked where God appeared in his description of celestial mechanics, "I had no need of that hypothesis".You say this as if it's bad to assume function and purpose behind things that weren't created by humans, yet this is a completely natural thing to do based on our knowledge of how agents can give meaning and purpose to the things they create.
In general, it's reasonable to assume that humans make things for some reason, so more often than not, what is made will have some purpose or intent behind it. But you're right, our perception of purpose and agency is unreliable. I still get spooked when things go 'bump' at night when I'm in the house alone and the doors and windows are locked; rationally I know that there's nothing to fear, but I still get spooked. Gamblers often think that luck goes in streaks, or that a result that hasn't appeared for a while is 'overdue'; people apologise for saying how well a football player is doing, in case they spoil his streak ('Commentator's Curse'), etc. We're all bundles of misleading cognitive biases, and over-attribution of agency (and so, purpose) is a major bias. What is 'Lady Luck' but a personification of randomness as purposeful agency?This line of thinking tends to point to us not being able to trust our own perception of what was purposefully made vs what wasn't, even in what humans make.
That's your choice, but you should be aware that what's intuitive isn't always what's reasonable (the history of discoveries about the world is a history of contradictions of intuition), and that intuition is often a poor guide to the world outside of our everyday experience (often within it too).Personally, I'll stick to the most intuitive and reasonable assumptions and go from there, having faith that the truth can be known and made known.
The flagellum is an extension of a single cell. That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears.
The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible.
so lets go step by step. if we will made a robot that made from organic components like proteins and dna. you will agree to consider it as a robot in this case?It's hard to say - words are like that. When you start dealing with fringe or special cases you often need to come up with new words or categories. In science fiction, humanoid robots are called 'androids', but that implies considerably more independence than robots as conventionally understood.
If you can explain what your point or argument is without these word games, maybe we'd get somewhere.
On consideration, no. I think the word should be reserved for non-biological machines. YMMV.so lets go step by step. if we will made a robot that made from organic components like proteins and dna. you will agree to consider it as a robot in this case?
as you can see- there i no problem to evolution if objects like gears exist. so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?